sua sponte instruction in Michigan

2016That is, when “[t]he weakened mental and physical state of the defendant [is] sufficient to present ‘an alerting circumstance which should have triggered the court’s sua sponte inquiry into the voluntariness of the statement,’ ” Ray, 431 Mich at 270 - 271, quoting Hooks, 112 Mich App at 482 , the general raise-or-waive rule does not apply. -7- In this case, we conclude that the “alerting circumstances” exception is inapplicable.

1988The weakened mental and physical state of the defendant was considered sufficient to present "an alerting circumstance which should have triggered the court’s sua sponte inquiry into the voluntariness of the statement.” Hooks, supra, p 482 .

1987We disagree with those panels which have held that a trial court must give a full sua sponte instruction describing a defendant’s theory even in the absence of a request for such an instruction, Cf., People v Gayton, 81 Mich App 390 ; 265 NW2d 344 (1978); People v Stanley Jones, 69 Mich App 459 ; 245 NW2d 91 (1976); People v Hearn, 100 Mich App 749 ; 300 NW2d 396 (1980).

1987We disagree with those panels which have held that a trial court must give a full sua sponte instruction describing a defendant’s theory even in the absence of a request for such an instruction, Cf., People v Gayton, 81 Mich App 390 ; 265 NW2d 344 (1978); People v Stanley Jones, 69 Mich App 459 ; 245 NW2d 91 (1976); People v Hearn, 100 Mich App 749 ; 300 NW2d 396 (1980).

1987We disagree with those panels which have held that a trial court must give a full sua sponte instruction describing a defendant’s theory even in the absence of a request for such an instruction, Cf., People v Gayton, 81 Mich App 390 ; 265 NW2d 344 (1978); People v Stanley Jones, 69 Mich App 459 ; 245 NW2d 91 (1976); People v Hearn, 100 Mich App 749 ; 300 NW2d 396 (1980).

1987We disagree with those panels which have held that a trial court must give a full sua sponte instruction describing a defendant’s theory even in the absence of a request for such an instruction, Cf., People v Gayton, 81 Mich App 390 ; 265 NW2d 344 (1978); People v Stanley Jones, 69 Mich App 459 ; 245 NW2d 91 (1976); People v Hearn, 100 Mich App 749 ; 300 NW2d 396 (1980).

1987We disagree with those panels which have held that a trial court must give a full sua sponte instruction describing a defendant’s theory even in the absence of a request for such an instruction, Cf., People v Gayton, 81 Mich App 390 ; 265 NW2d 344 (1978); People v Stanley Jones, 69 Mich App 459 ; 245 NW2d 91 (1976); People v Hearn, 100 Mich App 749 ; 300 NW2d 396 (1980).

1987We disagree with those panels which have held that a trial court must give a full sua sponte instruction describing a defendant’s theory even in the absence of a request for such an instruction, Cf., People v Gayton, 81 Mich App 390 ; 265 NW2d 344 (1978); People v Stanley Jones, 69 Mich App 459 ; 245 NW2d 91 (1976); People v Hearn, 100 Mich App 749 ; 300 NW2d 396 (1980).

2025Hess, 214 Mich App at 39 ; Martin, 130 Mich App at 611 .

2025Hess, 214 Mich App at 39 ; Martin, 130 Mich App at 611 .

2024See Al-Maliki v LaGrant, 286 Mich App 483, 485-486 ; 781 NW2d 853 (2009).2 Defendant had no notice that the trial court would consider balancing the equities for rescission at the hearing on its motion for summary disposition— defendant’s motion argued that the trial court did not need to balance the equities because plaintiff’s claim was derivative of Shannon’s, and in response, plaintiff argued that its claim was not derivative of Shannon’s and that plaintiff was an innocent third party.

2023Moreover, regardless of the court’s sua sponte comments about MCL 600.2591 from the bench, a court speaks through its orders, Luscombe v Shedd’s Food Prod Corp, 212 Mich App 537, 540 ; 539 NW2d 210 (1995), and the court’s order stated that it granted “the Motion for Sanctions filed on behalf of the Estate and Ms. Bauer.” As indicated, the Estate did not request sanctions on the basis of frivolousness, and Bauer, individually, simply sought additional attorney fees and costs on the basis of the trial court’s earlier finding of frivolousness.

2023Moreover, regardless of the court’s sua sponte comments about MCL 600.2591 from the bench, a court speaks through its orders, Luscombe v Shedd’s Food Prod Corp, 212 Mich App 537, 540 ; 539 NW2d 210 (1995), and the court’s order stated that it granted “the Motion for Sanctions filed on behalf of the Estate and Ms. Bauer.” As indicated, the Estate did not request sanctions on the basis of frivolousness, and Bauer, individually, simply sought additional attorney fees and costs on the basis of the trial court’s earlier finding of frivolousness.

2016That is, when “[t]he weakened mental and physical state of the defendant [is] sufficient to present ‘an alerting circumstance which should have triggered the court’s sua sponte inquiry into the voluntariness of the statement,’ ” Ray, 431 Mich at 270 - 271, quoting Hooks, 112 Mich App at 482 , the general raise-or-waive rule does not apply. -7- In this case, we conclude that the “alerting circumstances” exception is inapplicable.

1985People v Szymarek, 57 Mich App 354, 357 ; 225 NW2d 765 (1975), lv den 394 Mich 786 (1975); People v Godsey, 54 Mich App 316, 320-321 ; 220 NW2d 801 (1974); Broom, supra, p 341 ; People v Squire, 123 Mich App 700, 708-709 ; 333 NW2d 333 (1983).

1985People v Szymarek, 57 Mich App 354, 357 ; 225 NW2d 765 (1975), lv den 394 Mich 786 (1975); People v Godsey, 54 Mich App 316, 320-321 ; 220 NW2d 801 (1974); Broom, supra, p 341 ; People v Squire, 123 Mich App 700, 708-709 ; 333 NW2d 333 (1983).

1985People v Szymarek, 57 Mich App 354, 357 ; 225 NW2d 765 (1975), lv den 394 Mich 786 (1975); People v Godsey, 54 Mich App 316, 320-321 ; 220 NW2d 801 (1974); Broom, supra, p 341 ; People v Squire, 123 Mich App 700, 708-709 ; 333 NW2d 333 (1983).

1985People v Szymarek, 57 Mich App 354, 357 ; 225 NW2d 765 (1975), lv den 394 Mich 786 (1975); People v Godsey, 54 Mich App 316, 320-321 ; 220 NW2d 801 (1974); Broom, supra, p 341 ; People v Squire, 123 Mich App 700, 708-709 ; 333 NW2d 333 (1983).

1985People v Szymarek, 57 Mich App 354, 357 ; 225 NW2d 765 (1975), lv den 394 Mich 786 (1975); People v Godsey, 54 Mich App 316, 320-321 ; 220 NW2d 801 (1974); Broom, supra, p 341 ; People v Squire, 123 Mich App 700, 708-709 ; 333 NW2d 333 (1983).

1985People v Szymarek, 57 Mich App 354, 357 ; 225 NW2d 765 (1975), lv den 394 Mich 786 (1975); People v Godsey, 54 Mich App 316, 320-321 ; 220 NW2d 801 (1974); Broom, supra, p 341 ; People v Squire, 123 Mich App 700, 708-709 ; 333 NW2d 333 (1983).

1985People v Szymarek, 57 Mich App 354, 357 ; 225 NW2d 765 (1975), lv den 394 Mich 786 (1975); People v Godsey, 54 Mich App 316, 320-321 ; 220 NW2d 801 (1974); Broom, supra, p 341 ; People v Squire, 123 Mich App 700, 708-709 ; 333 NW2d 333 (1983).

1984People v Wilson, supra. Such is not the case here.

1979Cole, supra, did not involve a sua sponte instruction.

1977This issue is a mirror image of a question addressed and resolved in People v Ora Jones, 395 Mich 379, 390-391 ; 236 NW2d 461 (1975).

1977This issue is a mirror image of a question addressed and resolved in People v Ora Jones, 395 Mich 379, 390-391 ; 236 NW2d 461 (1975).

1976An identical argument was made and rejected in People v Bates, 55 Mich App 1, 5 ; 222 NW2d 6 (1974), where this court held that a trial court "is obligated to present to the jury the defendant’s theory of the case, but this duty arises ‘if a proper request is made and supported by competent testimony’.” Smith-Douglass v Walch, 391 Mich 201, 203 ; 215 NW2d 142 (1974), cited by appellant as mandating a sua sponte instruction in a civil case involving technical relationships of agency law. (2) Ten instances of prosecutorial error in summation to the jury during which the prosecutor (a) vouched fo

1976An identical argument was made and rejected in People v Bates, 55 Mich App 1, 5 ; 222 NW2d 6 (1974), where this court held that a trial court "is obligated to present to the jury the defendant’s theory of the case, but this duty arises ‘if a proper request is made and supported by competent testimony’.” Smith-Douglass v Walch, 391 Mich 201, 203 ; 215 NW2d 142 (1974), cited by appellant as mandating a sua sponte instruction in a civil case involving technical relationships of agency law. (2) Ten instances of prosecutorial error in summation to the jury during which the prosecutor (a) vouched fo

1976An identical argument was made and rejected in People v Bates, 55 Mich App 1, 5 ; 222 NW2d 6 (1974), where this court held that a trial court "is obligated to present to the jury the defendant’s theory of the case, but this duty arises ‘if a proper request is made and supported by competent testimony’.” Smith-Douglass v Walch, 391 Mich 201, 203 ; 215 NW2d 142 (1974), cited by appellant as mandating a sua sponte instruction in a civil case involving technical relationships of agency law. (2) Ten instances of prosecutorial error in summation to the jury during which the prosecutor (a) vouched fo

1976An identical argument was made and rejected in People v Bates, 55 Mich App 1, 5 ; 222 NW2d 6 (1974), where this court held that a trial court "is obligated to present to the jury the defendant’s theory of the case, but this duty arises ‘if a proper request is made and supported by competent testimony’.” Smith-Douglass v Walch, 391 Mich 201, 203 ; 215 NW2d 142 (1974), cited by appellant as mandating a sua sponte instruction in a civil case involving technical relationships of agency law. (2) Ten instances of prosecutorial error in summation to the jury during which the prosecutor (a) vouched fo